Mcg Design vs Ram Naresh Chauhan
2011 Latest Caselaw 5898 Del

$~14
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 LPA 844/2011

                                                Date of Decision: 2.12.2011.


          MCG DESIGN                                      ..... Appellant
                            Through     Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Advocate with Mr.
                                        M.F. Khan, Advocate.

                      Versus

          RAM NARESH CHAUHAN                          ..... Respondent

Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

A.K.SIKRI,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: (ORAL)

1. Notice in this appeal was issued limited to the question of grant of

compensation in lieu of award of reinstatement with 50% back wages

granted by the Labour Court and upheld by the learned Single Judge. It was

also directed that the notice shall indicate that the appeal shall be finally

heard and decided on the next date. The notice was duly served for 29 th

November, 2011 but nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. In the

interest of justice the case was adjourned for today to give another

opportunity to the respondent to make appearance and argue the case.

However, none has appeared today as well.

2. In these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed with the

matter on merits.

3. M/s Okhla Industrial Workers Union has espoused the case of ten

workmen alleging that their services were terminated illegally and

unjustifiable. The dispute was referred in respect of all these ten workmen

to the Labour Court. Though initially this dispute was prosecuted by the

Union and the workmen also appeared, after some time, the workmen

stopped appearing. When the case was listed on 24 th November, 2000 for

cross-examination of management witnesses, none of the workmen had

appeared. Nobody appeared even at the time of argument on behalf of the

workmen. However, the Labour Court proceeded with the reference as by

that time, evidence of workmen had been recorded and workmen had been

cross-examined. The Labour Court rendered the award dated 17 th March,

2011; in respect of nine workmen it held that there was relationship of

employer and employee. However, in respect of one workman namely Sh.

Ram Naresh Chauhan (respondent herein) it was held that his services were

terminated illegally as he had worked for more than 240 days and before

terminating his services provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act were not complied with. It was further held that the said workman

was not served with any show cause notice or chargesheet or any inquiry

was got conducted.

4. We may note here that the defence of the appellant was that Sh. Ram

Naresh chauhan had himself abandoned his job by remaining absent un-

authorisedly. It is in this context the Labour Court held that if he was

absenting himself, it was necessary for the appellant to issue show cause

notice or chargesheet or got conducted inquiry. When it was not done and

provisions of Section 25F were also violated, termination was held to be

illegal.

5. Thus, in respect of respondent herein namely Sh. Ram Naresh

Chauhan, the Labour Court passed the award directing his reinstatement

with 50% back wages @ his last drawn salary i.e ` 3400/- per month.

6. The appellant challenged the said award by filing the writ petition

which has been dismissed in limine by the learned single Judge by holding

that there is no infirmity in the award.

7. As pointed out above, in this appeal, notice was issued limited to the

relief granted by the Labour Court. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that

the termination of the respondent's services was illegal.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the

various pronouncements of the Supreme Court and recent trend and the

facts of this case, the reinstatement should not have been granted to the

respondent. The appellant has highlighted the fact that the respondent

workman was in the employment way back in the year 2000 and he worked

hardly for two years i.e. from 2000 to 2002. It was also submitted that

though there was a technical lapse on the part of the appellant in not holding

any inquiry, the fact remains that it was the respondent who had started

absenting himself from service. It is also argued that thereafter the

respondent did not show any interest which is also clear from the fact that

before the Labour Court the respondent stopped appearing after a particular

stage and the award was given in his absence. He also further highlights the

fact that even when notice of this appeal has been served upon the

respondent, none has appeared here also.

9. Learned counsel, in support, relies upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic),

Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 773.

10. We are of the opinion that the appellant has been able to make out a

case for non-grant of reinstatement and instead in the aforesaid

circumstances only lump sum compensation should have been awarded to

the workman. In our opinion, ends of justice would be subserved by

granting lump sum amount of `1 lakh (rupees one lakh only) in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages.

11. The impugned award as well as the order of the learned Single Judge

is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid

term.

No order as to costs.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW) JUDGE

DECEMBER 02, 2011 skb